Please explain...

[Chef]

I would argue with your definition of a kilt. You've taken a description of a kilt from an encyclopedia (one that is specifically about Scotland), and then added to it by describing some common features of traditional kilts, then declared those to be the criteria which determine whether or not a garment is a kilt. So yes, this is your definition of a kilt. And it is inherently flawed (at least, for the purposes of this discussion) because you defined a kilt with a description of a traditional kilt, and then said if it doesn't meet the definition, it isn't a kilt. You're defining kilts as being traditional kilts, then saying that non-traditional kilts aren't kilts, and pointing to your definition as evidence. It's a little circular, don't you think?

So, let's just check a dictionary for a definition. From websters:

1 : a knee-length pleated skirt usually of tartan worn by men in Scotland and by Scottish regiments in the British armies
2 : a garment that resembles a Scottish kilt

If you don't like that one, here's a whole bunch to choose from

I think this is a bit more usable as a definition. A pleated knee-length manskirt. Works for me.

Interesting you take MacMillan to task for using a source that basically agrees with the citation from Websters as well as the citations you linked to. Then make up a definition all your own which has no citation or basis in fact.

This is a perfectly good definition, as far as it goes, but some kilts, as mentioned earlier, are not made from tartan cloth, and there are skirts made from tartan cloth that are not kilts. Utilikilts on the other hand are pleated at the back, but are not made from tartan cloth. So how do we decide whether or not they're "descended from the wollen plaid worn by the highlanders from early times"? The only way I can see is to enumerate the characteristics of a kilt, and see how they differ from other forms of dress. That way, we'll be able to tell if a garment has the proper characteristics to count as a kilt.

Well the way we know it didn't descend from the woollen plaid is the inventor specifically said it didn't. It descended from cargo shorts. You can check their website. For practical reasons it has some features that are similar to a kilt but that is it. Pick-up trucks and coupes have many similar features but no confuses them.

So if it didn't descend from the plaid why did the inventor call it a Utilikilt? Because it is obvious from the angry reactions, everytime someone says a Utilikilt is not a real kilt, that you wouldn't wear it if it was called a "Utiliskirt" or a "UtiliMUG".

Just a quick thought on the topic of what is and is not a kilt...

A friend of mine had a hysterectomy. Another friend of mine had ovarian cancer and had to have her ovaries removed. Are these two individuals no longer women because they lack a characteristic of what it means to be a woman?

Sorry, but to even suggest this is analogous is a bit offensive.

[JakobT]

Well the way we know it didn't descend from the woollen plaid is the inventor specifically said it didn't. It descended from cargo shorts. You can check their website. For practical reasons it has some features that are similar to a kilt but that is it. Pick-up trucks and coupes have many similar features but no confuses them.

I believe what the inventor actually said is that he made up the first Utilikilt from a pair of cargo shorts. This, however, is neither here nor there. After the WWII a lot of wedding dresses were made from silk reclaimed from parachutes. Does this mean they weren't wedding dresses? Of course not.

[macwilkin]

I believe what the inventor actually said is that he made up the first Utilikilt from a pair of cargo shorts. This, however, is neither here nor there. After the WWII a lot of wedding dresses were made from silk reclaimed from parachutes. Does this mean they weren't wedding dresses? Of course not.

But I think Chef's point here is that the inventor of the Utilikilts never based his product on a kilt in a first place; they were based on cargo shorts, so therefore, trying to claim a lineage from a traditional Scottish kilt is faulty logic.

And your analogy of the wedding dress/parachute doesn't really apply, because we're not talking material -- the simple fact of the matter is that a Utilikilt was never based on a traditional Scottish kilt.

T.

[Makeitstop]

From websters:

1 : a knee-length pleated skirt usually of tartan worn by men in Scotland and by Scottish regiments in the British armies
2 : a garment that resembles a Scottish kilt

If you don't like that one, here's a whole bunch to choose from

I think this is a bit more usable as a definition. A pleated knee-length manskirt. Works for me.

Interesting you take MacMillan to task for using a source that basically agrees with the citation from Websters as well as the citations you linked to. Then make up a definition all your own which has no citation or basis in fact.

The definition MacMillan was using does not basically agree with Websters. Websters does not say that a kilt must somehow be descended from the old highland attire or make any reference to the depth of the pleats. And Websters has a second definition, which is fundamentally important. Websters is far less rigid.

second, I did not make up a definition all my own, I was merely restating the definition a little more plainly. If "a garment that resembles a Scottish kilt" is a kilt, then the garment does not have to be worn "in Scotland and by Scottish regiments in the British armies" to qualify as a kilt. And since the tartan bit is not absolute, it is not a requirement either. That leaves 4 basic characteristics to qualify according to Websters: knee-length, pleated, skirt, and worn by men.

So, like I said, it's a pleated knee-length manskirt.

[Chef]

second, I did not make up a definition all my own, I was merely restating the definition a little more plainly.

You didn't restate it; you changed it to what suited you by misusing the word resemble. You make the assumption that a Utilikilt resembles a Scottish kilt. I and many others would argue that it does not and was never intended to. The fact that it has similarities is based on function rather than intention. It no more resembles a Scottish kilt than a Ford Expidition SUV resembles a Ford Fusion. Yes they are both motor vehicles and by definition they share many similarities but one does not really resemble the other and no one would mistake one for the other.

The definition of the word resemble:

be like somebody or something: to be similar to somebody or something in appearance or behavior

So it is incorrect to make the jump from

"2 : a garment that resembles a Scottish kilt"

to

"A pleated knee-length manskirt"

because a pleated knee-length manskirt would not necessarily resemble a Scottish kilt. As is the case with a Utilikilt or a fustanellla.

[Monkey@Arms]

You didn't restate it; you changed it to what suited you by misusing the word resemble. You make the assumption that a Utilikilt resembles a Scottish kilt. I and many others would argue that it does not and was never intended to. The fact that it has similarities is based on function rather than intention. It no more resembles a Scottish kilt than a Ford Expidition SUV resembles a Ford Fusion. Yes they are both motor vehicles and by definition they share many similarities but one does not really resemble the other and no one would mistake one for the other.

The definition of the word resemble:

be like somebody or something: to be similar to somebody or something in appearance or behavior

So it is incorrect to make the jump from

"2 : a garment that resembles a Scottish kilt"

to

"A pleated knee-length manskirt"

because a pleated knee-length manskirt would not necessarily resemble a Scottish kilt. As is the case with a Utilikilt or a fustanellla.

Please you guys are making my ears bleed. Chef we know you don't like UKs, no one is forcing you to wear one. Must you continue to flog this horse? They are not Scottish kilts, we know that. Its an American invention, its called a Utilikilt, its different. They are in fact very popular in this and other countries, sell like hotcakes at U.S. Highland games, and many new variations to their basic design keep springing up both here and abroad, but they are not Scottish kilts, we agree. OK?

Best regards,

Jake

[Larry124]

Please you guys are making my ears bleed. Chef we know you don't like UKs, no one is forcing you to wear one. Must you continue to flog this horse? They are not Scottish kilts, we know that. Its an American invention, its called a Utilikilt, its different. They are in fact very popular in this and other countries, sell like hotcakes at U.S. Highland games, and many new variations to their basic design keep springing up both here and abroad, but they are not Scottish kilts, we agree. OK?
Best regards,
Jake

[Makeitstop]

You didn't restate it; you changed it to what suited you by misusing the word resemble. You make the assumption that a Utilikilt resembles a Scottish kilt. I and many others would argue that it does not and was never intended to. The fact that it has similarities is based on function rather than intention. It no more resembles a Scottish kilt than a Ford Expidition SUV resembles a Ford Fusion. Yes they are both motor vehicles and by definition they share many similarities but one does not really resemble the other and no one would mistake one for the other.

The definition of the word resemble:

be like somebody or something: to be similar to somebody or something in appearance or behavior

So it is incorrect to make the jump from

"2 : a garment that resembles a Scottish kilt"

to

"A pleated knee-length manskirt"

because a pleated knee-length manskirt would not necessarily resemble a Scottish kilt. As is the case with a Utilikilt or a fustanellla.

I never said anything about Utilikilts. Technically I never said they resemble a Scottish kilt, but I will now: Utilikilts resemble a Scottish kilt. And I never said they were intended to, nor will I.

A Utilikilt is similar to a Scottish kilt in appearance. It does not matter if it was intended to be or not, that doesn't change the fact that they are similar. And they do not have to be identical, just similar. Honestly, if you can't tell just by looking, I don't expect anything I say to make a difference.

And I stand by my reasoning. If a Kilt only has to resemble a Scottish kilt, then it does not actually have to be Scottish. Take all the Scottish out of definition 1 (which is obviously a Scottish kilt) and you are left with the 4 traits mentioned above, and the words "usually of tartan" which is not an absolute rule and therefore cannot be treated as a requirement. Thus, we have, the pleated knee-length manskirt.

Is it a perfect definition? Of course not. There are no perfect definitions. A perfect definition of a kilt would have to include without exception every single thing which could ever possibly be considered to be a kilt, and exclude without exception every single thing which could ever possibly be considered to not be a kilt. It would have to take into account every conceivable detail and potential variation no matter how big or small. It could leave absolutely no ambiguity in any case or any room for individual judgment. Even if it were feasible to write such a definition, there is no way in hell that we could ever get any kind of consensus on it.

As such, I am entirely content to go with the bare minimum requirement that it be a pleated knee-length manskirt, and leave all else to reason and common sense.

And ultimately, it doesn't really matter. Nothing about the garment itself changes if you call it a kilt, a mug, a skirt or a crotch curtain. It's just a label we use for communication purposes. A kilt by any other name...